The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MARIO D. BLUE, ) Case No. 1:25-cv-01565
)
Plaintiff, ) Judge J. Philip Calabrese
)
v. ) Magistrate Judge
) Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong
MISSOURI HIGHER EDUCATION )
LOAN AUTHORITY, )
)
Defendant. )
)
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Mario D. Blue filed suit without a lawyer in State court against
Defendant Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (“MOHELA”) alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
and Ohio consumer protection laws. Defendant removed the case on the basis of
federal question jurisdiction. In a previous case with similar claims, another Judge
in the Northern District of Ohio enjoined Mr. Blue from filing any new lawsuits
without first obtaining leave to do so. Pursuant to that Order, on July 28, 2025, the
Court stayed this action and notified Plaintiff that it would dismiss the case after 30
days if he did not seek leave to proceed. On July 29, 2025, Plaintiff moved for leave
to proceed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On April 17, 2025, Defendant mailed an installment bill for unpaid student
loans to Plaintiff Mario D. Blue. (ECF No. 1-1, ¶ 7, PageID #8 & #13.) The total
amount due was $2,824.44 and the total balance was $38,309.13. (Id.) On April 29,
2025, Mr. Blue served MOHELA with a written request for debt validation,
demanding MOHELA provide “the complete and unbroken chain of title for this
alleged debt,” a “complete payment history,” a “true and correct copy of the original
promissory note,” and “legal justification and authorization.” (Id., ¶ 8, PageID #8 &
#11–12.) Further, Mr. Blue notified MOHELA in his request that, until it satisfied
his request, he demanded that it “cease all collection activities, including reporting
any information about this alleged debt to any credit reporting agency.” (Id., PageID
#12.) On May 8, 2025, Mr. Blue served MOHELA with a “final notice & opportunity
to cure, disputed debt allegation,” in which he accused MOHELA of multiple
violations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, and again asked it to cease all collection activities, among other things. (Id.,
PageID #14–15.)
On May 15, 2025, MOHELA responded, informing Mr. Blue that he “may not
have provided sufficient information in the correspondence for [it] to investigate the
disputed information,” and that “the correspondence is considered to be ‘frivolous’ or
‘irrelevant.’” (Id., PageID #16.) MOHELA stated that it “would like to assist you
further by conducting an investigation,” and asked for Mr. Blue to submit sufficient
information and supporting documentation regarding the dispute. (Id.)
Mr. Blue provides no information that he ever responded to this request.
Instead, he alleges that MOHELA “failed to provide sufficient validation or proof of
ownership, assignment, or authority to collect on the alleged debt,” and “continued
collection activities and reported the alleged debt negatively to the three major
consumer reporting agencies.” (Id., ¶¶ 9–10, PageID #8.)
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in State court and served Defendant on
or about June 30, 2025. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 2, PageID #1.) Plaintiff alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and Ohio
consumer protection laws. (ECF No. 1-2, ¶¶ 12–19, PageID #8–9.) Specifically,
Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated: (1) 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) for “continuing
collection activities without validating the debt”; (2) 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) for
furnishing “inaccurate and unverifiable information to consumer reporting agencies”
and failing to “conduct a reasonable investigation after receiving notice of Plaintiff’s
dispute”; and (3) Ohio Revised Code § 1345.02 for “failure to validate the debt while
continuing to collect and report” resulting in “unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable
conduct.” (Id.) Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages, among other things.
(Id., PageID #8.)
On July 28, 2025, Defendant removed the case on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 5, PageID #2.) The same day, the Court stayed this action
pursuant to an Order from another Judge in this District that enjoined Mr. Blue from
filing any new lawsuits without first obtaining leave to do so. (ECF No. 4.) The Court
notified Plaintiff that it would dismiss the case after 30 days if he did not seek leave
to proceed. (Id.) On July 29, 2025, Plaintiff moved for leave to proceed. (ECF No. 5.)
SERIAL FILINGS
Notably, this is not the first time that Mr. Blue has brought similar claims and
arguments to those at issue here. He has filed suits against debt collectors. See Blue
v. Monarch Recovery Mgmt., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-2244, 2025 WL 638911 (N.D. Ohio Feb.
27, 2025); Blue v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., No. 1:22-cv-1518 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 2,
2022). Also, Mr. Blue has filed numerous cases challenging his child support
collection under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. See Blue v. Ryan, No. 1:19-
cv-00962 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 31, 2019); Blue v. United States Dep’t of Treasury Bureau of
the Fiscal Serv., No. 1:19-cv-01681 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 14, 2019); Blue v. United States
Dep’t of Treasury, No. 1:19-cv-01926 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 27, 2019); Blue v. Wendy R, No.
1:20-cv-00134 (N.D. Ohio May 4, 2020); Blue v. CSEA, No. 1:20-cv-02423 (N.D. Ohio
Feb. 24, 2021). Eventually, a Judge in this District permanently enjoined Mr. Blue
from filing actions in the Northern District of Ohio without first seeking and
obtaining leave to do so. Blue v. CSEA, No. 1:20-cv-02423, ECF No. 7 (N.D. Ohio
Sept. 29, 2021).
Mr. Blue found a way to “bypass the enjoining Order” by filing his claims under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in State court, prompting the defendants to
remove those cases to federal court. Monarch, 2025 WL 638911, at *3 (citing Blue v.
Fifth Third Bank, No. 1:21-cv-01609 (N.D. Ohio Dec, 6, 2021); Blue v. Capital One
Auto Fin., No. 1:22-cv-00518 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 12, 2022); Blue v. Midland Credit
Mgmt., Inc., No. 1:22-cv-01518 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 2, 2022); Blue v. Factual Data, Inc.,
No. 1:23-cv-01182 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 28, 2024); Blue v. Trans Union, LLC,1:23-cv-01125
(N.D. Ohio Sep. 18, 2024)). As the Monarch Court noted, all of these cases were
dismissed as frivolous. Id. To prevent further use of this loophole to evade
restrictions on Mr. Blue’s ability to file, the Judge in Monarch permanently enjoined
Mr. Blue from “filing or proceeding with any new lawsuits or other documents in this
Court without first seeking leave of court . . . regardless of whether a case is filed in
this federal court originally or transferred or removed to this Court by another federal
or state court.” 2025 WL 638911, at *4.
ANALYSIS
In his motion for leave to proceed, Plaintiff “asserts that the claims presented
in the Complaint are brought in good faith, are supported by facts and law, and do
not constitute duplicative or frivolous litigation.” (ECF No. 5, ¶ 3, PageID #34.) Not
so. As noted earlier, Mr. Blue has filed dozens of frivolous lawsuits in the Northern
District of Ohio challenging debts. “Blue has an extensive history of filing frivolous
cases against his creditors in this Court.” Monarch, 2025 WL 638911, at *3. Indeed,
the Court recently dismissed a separate action filed by Mr. Blue against a debt
collector for similarly frivolous claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
See Blue v. FirstCredit, Inc., 1:25-cv-01563, ECF No. 8 (N.D. Ohio July 31, 2025).
As the Court observed in FirstCredit, it need not repeat the similar analyses
that numerous other courts in the District have used to dismiss Mr. Blue’s claims as
frivolous. In short, none of Mr. Blue’s claims have any merit. Under 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692g(b), “[i]f the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-
day period . . . that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed . . . the debt collector
shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt
collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment,” among other
information it must acquire. Defendant informed Mr. Blue that it lacked sufficient
information to investigate and requested further information and documentation so
that it could “conduct[] an investigation.” (ECF No. 1-1, PageID #16.) But Plaintiff
provides no information that he ever responded. Nor has Plaintiff alleged any actions
that Defendant took that specifically violated this statute, merely alleging that
Defendant “continu[ed] collection activities without validating the debt.” (Id., ¶ 13,
PageID #8.)
Plaintiff’s other claims suffer from the same defect. It is unclear from the
pleadings how Defendant “failed to conduct a reasonable investigation after receiving
notice of Plaintiff’s dispute” under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) when Defendant attempted
to correspond with Plaintiff for information to conduct an investigation. (ECF
No. 1-1, PageID #16.) Further, Plaintiff’s conclusory statement that Defendant’s
alleged “failure to validate the debt while continuing to collect and report constitutes
unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable conduct under Ohio Revised Code § 1345.02”
provides no guidance as to how any of the subsections of that statute apply. Nor is it
evident to the Court how any of these subsections apply to Defendant’s conduct in
this case. Although the pleadings and documents pro se litigants file are liberally
construed and held to less stringent standards than the formal pleadings of lawyers,
Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004), pro se litigants are not exempt
from the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wells v. Brown, 891
F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). Plaintiffs conclusory statements, without more, do not
suffice to state “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face” to avoid dismissal. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
In both Monarch and this case, Mr. Blue appears to have made “no attempt to
apply [the] statutes to the facts of his case.” Monarch, 2025 WL 638911, at *3.
Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs claims are “so unsubstantial, frivolous and
devoid of merit’ that dismissal is required.” Jd. (quoting Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477,
479 (6th Cir. 1999) (per curiam)).
CONCLUSION
For all of these reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action WITH
PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 31, 2025
J.PhilipCalabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio